U.S. Military Spending Dwarfs China's

[Machjo]

If anybody would like to see a win in Afghanistan, then get out of the business of amateurs running a war and let the professionals do their jobs. That means keeping the media and public out of our business. We were sent there to get Bn Laden, almost had him then amateurs got involved and here we are today.​

If the military is supported by the taxpayer, then the taxpayer has a say in how it operates. Heck, even the Nazis had to worry about PR and they were a pure fascist dictatorship. So if even they had to wory about it, how can you tell us to just pay our taxes and shut up? If we have no say in military matters, then we have no obligation to pay our taxes.

Think back to history class... No taxation without representation. Rings a bell?

 

[Machjo]

If we should separate military matters from ethical, economic, diplomatic, and other ones, then we fail to see how various issues overlap and affect one another.

After all, if we were in Vietnam to help the Vietnamse people, carpet bombing, though militarily feasible, would conflict with the supposed policial objective of the mission.

If our goal in Iraq is to find WMDs, then we certainly have the right to see hard proof before the military is allowed to attack Iraq.

If our argument for Afghanistan was to get Bin Laden, then we do have a right to quesiton why the mission suddenly changes to a humanitarian one mid-mission?

We also have a right to quesiton the economic impact of a war, the ethical quesitons surrounding the war, etc. That's called democracy. The alternative is a military dictatorship.

 

[lone wolf]

are you implying that the Chinese are still in the stone age when it comes to their war machine?

No ... far from it.

Chinese are as capable in "stone-age" weapons (as demonstrated by Viet Cong) as they are in cutting-edge high tech ... and they have the manpower to carry on in both.

I am implying US is too reliant on technology.

 

[gerryh]

If we should separate military matters from ethical, economic, diplomatic, and other ones, then we fail to see how various issues overlap and affect one another.

After all, if we were in Vietnam to help the Vietnamse people, carpet bombing, though militarily feasible, would conflict with the supposed policial objective of the mission.

If our goal in Iraq is to find WMDs, then we certainly have the right to see hard proof before the military is allowed to attack Iraq.

If our argument for Afghanistan was to get Bin Laden, then we do have a right to quesiton why the mission suddenly changes to a humanitarian one mid-mission?

We also have a right to quesiton the economic impact of a war, the ethical quesitons surrounding the war, etc. That's called democracy. The alternative is a military dictatorship.

h


You're missing the point of "let the professionals fight the war".... Yes, the people should make an informed decision as to whether or not the country goes to war, but once the decision has been made, then let the damn professionals fight the war in whatever way is necessary to ensure the win.

 

[gerryh]

No ... far from it.

Chinese are as capable in "stone-age" weapons (as demonstrated by Viet Cong) as they are in cutting-edge high tech ... and they have the manpower to carry on in both.

I am implying US is too reliant on technology.

Do you know what the difference was between the NVA, the Viet Cong, and the Chinese Army, because it sure as hell doesn't sound like it.

 

[darkbeaver]

Americans have guns but no butter. Empty headed twits.

 

[lone wolf]

Do you know what the difference was between the NVA, the Viet Cong, and the Chinese Army, because it sure as hell doesn't sound like it.

I most certainly do. It sounds to me like your problem may be in interpretation.

 

[Machjo]

h


You're missing the point of "let the professionals fight the war".... Yes, the people should make an informed decision as to whether or not the country goes to war, but once the decision has been made, then let the damn professionals fight the war in whatever way is necessary to ensure the win.

I can agree to that, but then it means that the war must be limited to an all-out war. In other words, it can't be some ishy washy 'we're going to liberate them' kind of war, otherwise we need to ensure that we are in fact liberating them and not liberating the sh!t out of them, and that would mean public scrutiny, whereby as soon as the war can't be won without liberating the sh!t out fo the people, it's time to pull out.

The only kind of war that can be fought without public scrutiny is a 'we'd better win or we're screwed' type of war, whereby we are prepared to submit to a war economy if necessary and will not hesitate to bomb entire cities to get the job done.

The second war above could be fought without public scrutiny because it would be clearly a 100% military operation. A war of liberation, nation-building, hearts-and -minds campaigns and the like are no longer 100% war, but part diplomacy too.

So if the military wants to keep civilians out fo the war, it must first convince the public that it is indeed a we win or we're screwed type of war and not a liberation type of war. That decision must be made prior to the war, and can't be changed mid-war as was the case with Afghanistan and Iraq. In WWII, the mission remained the same from day one to the end of the war, with the accomlishment of the mission being the end of the war.

 

[gerryh]

I most certainly do. It sounds to me like your problem may be in interpretation.

Then let's hear it, because you equating the Viet Cong DIRECTLY with the Chinese is wrong.

 

[lone wolf]

Then let's hear it, because you equating the Viet Cong DIRECTLY with the Chinese is wrong.

Kindly point out where Viet Cong are equated DIRECTLY with the Chinese?

Viet Cong (Vietnamese Communist) are the National Liberation Front - the voice of Vietminh (the movement to nationalize) and the Peoples' Liberation Army - the militant sector. Vietminh was not a Communist movement per se - but it had to be backed by someone. Traditionally, Vietnam did not trust China. Vietnamese learned the art of undermining battle during many tears of resisting the Chinese. North Vietnamese Army were supplied by China and Russia and North Vietnamese MiGs were based in China.

It might interest you to know that much of Vietminh's earliest training in subversive warfare was taught by the Office of Strategic Services - back before the days when Vietnamese were trying to kick the French out and Ho Chi Minh made the mistake of accepting recognition by Red China and the Soviet Union.

Anything else you want to know?

 

[gerryh]

Kindly point out where Viet Cong are equated DIRECTLY with the Chinese?

Viet Cong (Vietnamese Communist) are the National Liberation Front - the voice of Vietminh (the movement to nationalize) and the Peoples' Liberation Army - the militant sector. Vietminh was not a Communist movement per se - but it had to be backed by someone. Traditionally, Vietnam did not trust China. Vietnamese learned the art of undermining battle during many tears of resisting the Chinese. North Vietnamese Army were supplied by China and Russia and North Vietnamese MiGs were based in China.

It might interest you to know that much of Vietminh's earliest training in subversive warfare was taught by the Office of Strategic Services - back before the days when Vietnamese were trying to kick the French out and Ho Chi Minh made the mistake of accepting recognition by Red China and the Soviet Union.

Anything else you want to know?

Small addition, the Viet Cong were South Vietnamese subversives (the NLF were based in South Vietnam). They were not directly supported by the Chinese like the NVA was, yet you have linked the Chinese and VC in previous posts.

 

[lone wolf]

Small addition, the Viet Cong were South Vietnamese subversives (the NLF were based in South Vietnam). They were not directly supported by the Chinese like the NVA was, yet you have linked the Chinese and VC in previous posts.

K... I left out the North/South Vietnam theatres of operation because the whole thing is confusing enough and I assume (my bad) most folks know Viet Cong operated in the South.

Where is this DIRECT link? The Communism part is one because Vietminh wan't communist. It was a nationalist movement that adopted communism in order to get the support it needed. Some of that support came from China. Cadrés were educated in Communist principle in China. Most of the materiels of war that came down the Ho Chi Minh trail originated in China or Russia.

 

[Machjo]

But I thought the US was there to liberate the Vietnamese, so why the the liberated Southern Vietnamese subverting the US?

You see, that's where I have a rpoblem. In a war of liberation, war and diplomacy inevitably get tangled up. How do we liberate a country that doesn't want to be liberated? The only way to do so is to liberate the sh!t out of it, which defies the purpose of liberation in the first place, in which case it's time to pull out.
The inherent contradiction of such a misison is precisely why such a war should not be allowed.

If we go to war, it should be all out war. In other words, we're not pretending to be liberating anyone. That's what gets government in a mess. We make it clear from the start that it's an all out war or no war, and that everyone in the enemy nation shall be viewed as an enemy unless he proves otherwise. That beig the cae, heavy firepower becomes allowable to subdue the enemy nations' military and then we pul out. After all, we wouldn't be there to liberate them anymore.

But if we do go to liberate them, then we must be consistent. Liberating them and liberating the sh!t out of them are not the same thing. In that case, diplomacy clearly becomes important and public scrutiny to make sure it remains a war of liberation and not an all-out war becomes important.

 

[RanchHand]

That's the whole thing about a smoke screen. It confuses things.

My point is, US military spending has always dwarfed China's yet Chinese sticks-and-stones doctrine still gives good account of itself against technology and gadgetry.

The Soviet Union and China were both supporting North Vietnam. In fact, Vietnam fought a boarder war with China shortly after the Vietnam war ended. Hanoi wasn't defended with sticks and stones. Why do you the the US was so happy to see the Soviet Union bled dry in Afghanistan? Hmm?

 

[lone wolf]

The Soviet Union and China were both supporting North Vietnam. In fact, Vietnam fought a boarder war with China shortly after the Vietnam war ended. Hanoi wasn't defended with sticks and stones. Why do you the the US was so happy to see the Soviet Union bled dry in Afghanistan? Hmm?

Did someone say Hanoi was defended with stick and stones? ...certainly no Naval aviators or USAF people would.

What are punji stakes if not "sticks"? What were improvised landmines if not stones and nails projected by an explosive charge. Booby traps were definately not high tech.

Vietnam invaded Cambodia in late 1975 too (or was it the Khmer Republic ... or Kampuchea?) in a battle with Khmer Rouge.

Why in Hell would the US think it could win against a peasant army and terrorists who beat a foe who scared the shyte out of them? (the US) Hmmm?

 

[ironsides]

If the military is supported by the taxpayer, then the taxpayer has a say in how it operates. Heck, even the Nazis had to worry about PR and they were a pure fascist dictatorship. So if even they had to wory about it, how can you tell us to just pay our taxes and shut up? If we have no say in military matters, then we have no obligation to pay our taxes.

Think back to history class... No taxation without representation. Rings a bell?

What I meant was if you (the people) want to send your 19 and 20+ year olds into harms way, think well before you do it. Then once they are sent, leave them alone to do their job, do not play games with politics. Politics kill as much as a machine gun. Civilians should not have any say in military matters except to decide when to use them and when to quit, other than stay out.

 

[ironsides]

Did someone say Hanoi was defended with stick and stones? ...certainly no Naval aviators or USAF people would.

What are punji stakes if not "sticks"? What were improvised landmines if not stones and nails projected by an explosive charge. Booby traps were definately not high tech.

Vietnam invaded Cambodia in late 1975 too (or was it the Khmer Republic ... or Kampuchea?) in a battle with Khmer Rouge.

Why in Hell would the US think it could win against a peasant army and terrorists who beat a foe who scared the shyte out of them? (the US) Hmmm?

In the 1968 Tet offensive, yes the U.S. was surprised, but they destroyed the VC as a fighting unit forever, and drove the NVA back across the border. It was after we left Vietnam and turned over military control to the South Vietnamese that the North crushed them. We left because of a near revolution back home, not because we were defeated on the battlefield.

 

[Machjo]

What I meant was if you (the people) want to send your 19 and 20+ year olds into harms way, think well before you do it. Then once they are sent, leave them alone to do their job, do not play games with politics. Politics kill as much as a machine gun. Civilians should not have any say in military matters except to decide when to use them and when to quit, other than stay out.

Looks like we're on the same page on this. That being the case though, the mission needs to be clearly spelt out before the decision is made. No more confusing the people with this kind of mission or that kind of mission. We make it clear that it's a mission of destruction, take it or leave it. If the situation is dire enough, as was the case in WWII, people wil take it. If however, we'll be facing changing mission statements every year, no proof for WMD', etc., people won't. If that is what you meant, then I fully agree with you. Soldiers are trained for killing, not nation building, humanitarian work, etc.

 

[Machjo]

In the 1968 Tet offensive, yes the U.S. was surprised, but they destroyed the VC as a fighting unit forever, and drove the NVA back across the border. It was after we left Vietnam and turned over military control to the South Vietnamese that the North crushed them. We left because of a near revolution back home, not because we were defeated on the battlefield.

And the reason for the politics back home was because of the confusion. It was supposed to be a war of liberation, which obviously implies collaboration with the locals, hearts and minds campaigns, etc.

It should have been said from the start that the war was not about the locals, but fiighting for US interests. That way, people would have known from the start that heavy military force would be accepted. The misison needs to be clearly defined.

Look at WWII. It was clear and simple... defeat the Nazis. For a military operation, that's how simple the mission must be. None of this liberation half military half diplomatic stuff. it must be made clear that you're going to destroy something.

 

[L Gilbert]

We didn't have anything like we have now in Vietnam. High tech was in its infancy then.

ok forget about VietNam. What good is high tech crap in Afghanistan. You will agree that there are skirmishes in Afghanistan still going on, won't you?